Do you even bother looking at tour dates? Or are you just stupid enough to take 2-3 arena dates in the biggest markets and 20-30 amphitheater dates on a tour and label it an "arena level" act? For future reference, playing MSG doesn't make you an arena-level act. Playing MSG plus 30 other arenas on the same tour, does.

There's exactly ONE band on the entire poster that consistently plays arenas: RHCP. End of story.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Zafocaine

If you go on youtube, you'll see people from the UK saying how lucky and unappreciative we are to be getting the combo. I agree. We're lucky, for brits, but we're fucked as Americans. Maybe the Blur Roses would have been a very welcomed "headlining" act in the UK, but this festival is NOT in the UK, and it wasn't especially marketed for the UK. While I hope that they both put on great shows, I also hope that GV takes a hit this year. It's about time they remember what it's like to have to worry about their future as a major festival. Rarity doesn't matter when there's no demand in your current market. Economics, brah.

Have you spent time listening to Stone Roses in the past week? Blur have a strong catalogue, but I can easily see it as being "too british" for US listeners.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Bumblebee

Blur/Roses is a ballsiest and best 1-2 combination of any worldwide festival in the past 4 years.

Oh please, Primavera had Blur on their lineup before Coachella and the Roses are complete wild cards that may put up a stinker for all we know, and not to mention they will have one of the saddest crowds at a Coachella headliner ever unless Paul shuts everything down just to direct people over to the Main.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by igotmyxomatosis

Oh please, Primavera had Blur on their lineup before Coachella and the Roses are complete wild cards that may put up a stinker for all we know, and not to mention they will have one of the saddest crowds at a Coachella headliner ever unless Paul shuts everything down just to direct people over to the Main.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

It does not matter who we "think" can headline. Does not matter. It doesn't matter if Goldenvoice decides they want Animal Collective to headline or Grizzly Bear or Wilco or R. Kelly or Rihanna or :insert your favorite band, artist or singer here: Doesn't matter. It mattered before when they needed to shift a large amount of tickets but Coachella has shifted, now people go for the "experience" and the music is merely icing on a cake now. Goldenvoice can make whoever they want as a headliner without having to worry about sales. The festival sold out without a line up and will continue to do so going forward. Until the time comes where the festival becomes irrelevant and sales falter then this discussion can be brought up again.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by igotmyxomatosis

Oh please, Primavera had Blur on their lineup before Coachella and the Roses are complete wild cards that may put up a stinker for all we know, and not to mention they will have one of the saddest crowds at a Coachella headliner ever unless Paul shuts everything down just to direct people over to the Main.

I said the COMBINATION of Blur/Roses, which will be a worldwide exclusive that will be talked about for years to come.

I haven't heard any reports of bad gigs on the Roses reunion tour. Maybe the 2nd(?) gig that skipped the encore but few complained.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

The fact of the matter is that the festival still sold out in less than a day, which means Blur/Stone Roses/Phoenix headlining means fuck all. We're going to see bands booked as headliners over the next few years who deserve the title more so due to critical acclaim rather than sales and mainstream popularity.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Phantasma Del Mar

The fact of the matter is that the festival still sold out in less than a day, which means Blur/Stone Roses/Phoenix headlining means fuck all. We're going to see bands booked as headliners over the next few years who deserve the title more so due to critical acclaim rather than sales and mainstream popularity.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Phantasma Del Mar

The fact of the matter is that the festival still sold out in less than a day, which means Blur/Stone Roses/Phoenix headlining means fuck all. We're going to see bands booked as headliners over the next few years who deserve the title more so due to critical acclaim rather than sales and mainstream popularity.

Quoting for lolz next year. And the year after. And so on.

If you think this year is the rule rather than the exception, you're high.

I am curious though, so feel free to throw some examples out there of bands you think are more likely to headline due to their "critical acclaim" and this apparent cataclysmic shift in GV headliner booking philosophy, that otherwise would not have headlined.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by mrhand

Quoting for lolz next year. And the year after. And so on.

If you think this year is the rule rather than the exception, you're high.

I am curious though, so feel free to throw some examples out there of bands you think are more likely to headline due to their "critical acclaim" and this apparent cataclysmic shift in GV headliner booking philosophy, that otherwise would not have headlined.

probably less expensive acts that put on a great show and may or may not of played coachella before.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by ods..

Like Bon Iver, off the top of my head. Seeing them sub for Radiohead was impressive as fuck. I could see GV bumping them after another album.

There's an example. After subbing last year I'd say they're a headline candidate in a couple years regardless given their trajectory in the last few years, but probably on the border line and would need a bump a la Phoenix.

I don't personally think this year represents a new headliner booking strategy on the part of GV. Just a year in which they got turned down by numerous bigger acts and got stuck with several 2nd tier risks, and a lazy, popular retread. I doubt they're content and happy with what they got in comparison to what they expected/wanted.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Who said Coachella sold out? Go google search Coachella tickets. If moving mass amounts to second-hand distributors upon public release equates a sell-out, then sure. It's becoming clear to me that Coachella has never sold out, or filled to maximum capacity. It's all hype. Are you going to pay a markup because your ticket got sold to stubhub, or are you going to say fuck this careless capitalist festival??? I got my tickets, so I don't care what you do. Just curious ;D

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Zafocaine

Who said Coachella sold out? Go google search Coachella tickets. If moving mass amounts to second-hand distributors upon public release equates a sell-out, then sure. It's becoming clear to me that Coachella has never sold out

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by gswhooper

So in your words, no event has ever sold out.

Maximum Capacity is a true sell out. At that point, all the scalpers either sold their tickets for face, or went to the show. This has never happened at Coachella, to my knowledge. You can always go to Ralphs and find someone buying/ selling wristbands, if you're desperate to sell one for cheap, or get one for way over what it's worth. I think this year will be the hardest on scalpers, which will directly reflect on future ticket sales, barring truly great headliners next year. "Sold out" is used to keep people thinking they're really important. While I personally favor this festival over all others due to its lineups, and its location, it does seem like they're sort of falling behind. I had no problem with how long it took them to release the lineup. If they could have secured some better headliners, I would have been happy waiting two more months for it. There will be tickets available Thursday before the show, Friday before the show, Saturday before the show, Sunday before the show, and Monday if you want a souvenir. In what way is the festival sold out?

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by Zafocaine

Maximum Capacity is a true sell out. At that point, all the scalpers either sold their tickets for face, or went to the show. This has never happened at Coachella, to my knowledge. You can always go to Ralphs and find someone buying/ selling wristbands, if you're desperate to sell one for cheap, or get one for way over what it's worth. I think this year will be the hardest on scalpers, which will directly reflect on future ticket sales, barring truly great headliners next year. "Sold out" is used to keep people thinking they're really important. While I personally favor this festival over all others due to its lineups, and its location, it does seem like they're sort of falling behind. I had no problem with how long it took them to release the lineup. If they could have secured some better headliners, I would have been happy waiting two more months for it. There will be tickets available Thursday before the show, Friday before the show, Saturday before the show, Sunday before the show, and Monday if you want a souvenir. In what way is the festival sold out?

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by PulpOne

Yes, it still sold out.

Moving units doesn't equate to a sell out. Let me say it like this.... Frontgate sold out their Coachella ticket stock. That much may be true, but if all of the tickets do not go into the hands of attendees, then it was technically NOT a sell out. If it's to be considered a sell out when it's far below capacity, then it's hype. Is this starting to make sense to you? If you're hyping your show too much, you'll lose money when people decide not to buy into the hype based on the actual lineup. In this case, it can result in a loss of money when stubhub and ticket master both buy smaller amounts of tickets next year based on poor sales this year, letting the ACTUAL DEMAND control the sales. The festival will be completely tarnished when it's revealed that the ACTUAL DEMAND does not sell out within hours, or days, but in weeks, or not at all. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out where the festival goes from there.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by mrhand

Quoting for lolz next year. And the year after. And so on.

If you think this year is the rule rather than the exception, you're high.

I am curious though, so feel free to throw some examples out there of bands you think are more likely to headline due to their "critical acclaim" and this apparent cataclysmic shift in GV headliner booking philosophy, that otherwise would not have headlined.

I'm not saying every headliner every year is going to be something non traditional, but I'd imagine there's a possibility of it happening at least one day out of the weekend from now on. As far as examples, off the top of my head I would say Queens Of The Stoneage given Josh Homme's involvement with the festival. I didn't think Bjork would ever headline again but now I can see it happening. Neil Young. Animal Collective after another album or two.

Re: 2013: The Year Without Headliners

Originally Posted by mrhand

Quoting for lolz next year. And the year after. And so on.

If you think this year is the rule rather than the exception, you're high.

I am curious though, so feel free to throw some examples out there of bands you think are more likely to headline due to their "critical acclaim" and this apparent cataclysmic shift in GV headliner booking philosophy, that otherwise would not have headlined.

Generally I find this conversation really tiresome but I'm gonna hop in here for a sec:

This year is proof that Coachella has gone from being just another US music festival to being the first US music festival to attain event status that sells based on the experience rather than being dependent on a populist lineup. Burning Man hit this point last year too, Glasto has been there for years with only 2009 (global recession year) as an exception.

Bitch about the headliners all you want, I ain't gonna argue with you. They're not my cup of tea at all. This might be the first year I doubt I'll see more than 20 minutes of any headlining set (I'm gonna check out The Stone Roses and Blur as a promise to Dani and some other friends who have incredibly fond memories of how these bands shaped 90s rock, but I doubt they're going to blow me away). But if you're seriously going to sit there and claim that this year's ticket sales--both the presale and the onsale after this much-maligned lineup dropped--aren't evidence that Coachella has gone to the next level... well, you're trying to force an opinion you feel strongly about against overwhelming evidence against you.

Coachella is larger than any other US festival now between the two weekends. It has gone from a campsite of 10,000 to 55,000 or more. People are going to see bands, sure, but honestly at this point the music is coming second to the experience. It's a vacation. It's a special little world that gets created for a brief moment out of the year. When the presale happens this year in June again, you will see the same thing that happened in 2012. Barring economic problems, it is going to be several years before they have any trouble selling all the tickets again.

Last edited by RotationSlimWang; 01-30-2013 at 03:49 PM.

Originally Posted by amyzzz

Hannah, I don't know that pigs have big weiners, and my early 20's facination with dogs because of weiner size, I think. If that helps.